River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1887-11-10
DOOMED.


Writ of Error in the Anarchists Case
Text of the Decision-No constitutional
Question Involved - The Ony Hope for
Them Now Is Conferred In the Prospect
for CIemeney by Governor oglesby.
/ WASHINGTON, Nov 3.-The decision OF the
/ United States Supreme Court upon the
position for a writ of error in the case
: OF the Chicago Anarchists was announced
/ Yesterday afternoon by Chief Justice
/ Waite in a long and carefully prepared
! opinion which occupied thirty-tive minutes
/ tn the reading.
4 This DESTROYS their last chance for
/ judicial interference with the execution Of
/ the sentence, and their oAly hope now for
I prolon cation Of life seems 70 de-
pend upon the executive ciemency Of
I the Governor of Illinois. The courtroom
( was crowded when the Justices took their
seats few minutes past IL o'clock. They
appeared unusually solemn and serious,
and hush fell over the room, when Chief
Justice Waite, without a moments delay,
announced that he would read the opinion
of the court in the matter of an application
by Spies and others for a writ OF error
TO the Supreme Court of the State
of Illinois Almost the first SON
tence Indicated that the Anarchists appeal
10 the court of dernier resort was Intellectual
and that the writ would be denied Chief
Justice Waite, who, il is understood, pre-
pared the decision, proceeded slowly and
calmly to read the decision, while the audi
ence paid the closest attention TO each
sentence.
J. Randolph Tucker for the defendants,
was the only attorney engaged in the case
who was at the bar when the decision was
read. A sense of the gravity of the question
involved and the importance of the decision
to be delivered was panty marked on every
countenance on the bench When the
Justices entered the room Justices Miller
and Waite sighed deeply number of times
and the voice Of the latter IL, mbled for some
minutes after be began reading. At times
he repeatedly faltered, and, going back, re-
peated who g sentences The faces of the
other seven Justices were turned TO the
floor during nearly the entire time of the
delivery. Occasionally Justice Waite took
his eyes from the paper, looked the au-
dence in the face, and gave emphasis to
points in the decision which marked the
outline of his intentions and showed what
had guided the bench in reaching its con-
clnsion. Not word was uttered audibly
IN the courtroom about the case at the
conclusion of the reading Of the deeisoR,
but general satisfaction is expressed out
side
cision:
When, as in this case, application is made to
US on the suggestion of one of our number TO
whom a similar application has been previous
ly addressed for the allowance OF a writ
OF error, 1t is our duty TO ascertain, not
only whether any quest on rev ewable
here was made and decided IL the proper
court below, but whether IL is OF
o character to justify the bringing
the judgment here for denomination. In
our opinion the writ ought not TO be
allowed by the court IL IT appears from
the face Of the record that the decision OF the
Federal question which Is complained OF was
so plainly right as not 10 requ 70 argument and
especially II II is in accordance with our
own well-eonsdered judgments in similar
cases. That Is IN effect what was done
In Twitehen VS.. The Commonwealth, Wall.
3.3 when the writ was refused because the
questions presented by the record were mo
longer subje Is OF discussion" although, II
they had been in the opinion OF the court
"open," it would have been allowed.
In the present case we have had the benefit
OF argument IN support OF the application, and,
while counsel have not deemed il their
duty to go fully into the merits OF
the questions involved. they have
shown distinctly what the decisions
were of which they complain, and how
the questions arose. In this way we are
able TO determine as a court IN session,
whether the errors alleged are such as 10
justify US in bringing the case here for
review. We proceed then, to consider what
the questions are in which, II il ex SITS at all,
our jurisdiction depends. The particular pro-
visions of the constitution OF the United States
on which consul rely are fou d in Articles w,
V, and XIV OF the amendments.
That the first ten articles Of amendment
were not intended TO limit the powers of the
State governments in respect 70 their own
afff n n n M National
ment alone, was decided more than a half
century ago, and that decision has been
steadily adhered TO since.
It was contended, however, in argument
that though originally the first ten amend
ments were adopted as limitations on
Federal power, yet in so far as they secure
and recognize fundamental rights, COM
mon Law rights OF the man, they make them
privileges and immunities the man as a cit
izen Of the United States, and can not now DO
abridged by Ga State under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The objections are in brief a. That statute
of the State as construed by the court de-
prived the petitioners OF trial by an impair
tial jury; and 2), That Spies was COM
PEELED to give evidence against himself. Be
fore considering whether the constitution OF
the United States has the effect which is
claimed, it is proper 10 inquire whether the
Federal questions relied on in fact
arise on the face OF this record. One
statute TO which objection is made was
approved March IL, 1874, and
has been in force since July !, of that year.
The complaint IS that the trial cou t, acting
under this statute, and in accordance with its re-
Qurements, compelled the petitioners, against
their win, TO submit TO a trial by jury
that was not impartial, and thus deprived
them Of one of the fundamental rights which
they had as citizens Of the United States I'M
der the National constitution; and that If the
1 they VIII be deprived OF their lives without
due process OF law"
In Hopt vs. Utah, 1e0 United States 439, 1t
/ was decided by this court that, where chal-
lenge by a defendant in a criminal action 10
juror .or bias actual or implied, is disailowed,
and the juror is thereupon peremptoriy chal-
Z lenged by the defendan and excused
and an impartia and competent juror is OBJ
tanned in his place, no injury is done the de-
/ PENDANT IT, until the jury is completed, he has
I other peremptory challenges which he can use.
/ OF the corr ctness of this rul ng we entertain
no doubt II is held that both DenlSer and San
ford had been properly impannele :, and that the
\ fact that the defense had exhausted their per
emptory challenges when Juror Sanford was
presented did not come within the rule lad
down in a Territorial case. dec ded by the SUI
preme Court OF the United States, and that,
/ therefore, Sanford was a competent juror.
The dec sion then says that the jury law Of
Z
NJ ehigan and Nebraska, the constitut onality
I OF which has been sustained n numerous courts
/ OF record, and says; We agree entirely with
the Supreme Court OF Illinois In the opn-
/ ion that the statute on IT'S face as con-
! strued by the trial court is not repug-
/ nBnt TO section OF article OF the con
( stitutiun of that State, which guarantees
1 10 the accused party in every criminal
I prosecution a speedy trial by an impair
| tial Jury OF the county or district in which
I the offense is alleged to have been committed
AS This SUBJ iantialy the provision OF the
{ constitution OF the United States on which
the petitioners now rely, 1t follows that even If
their position as TO the operation and effect
I Of that constitution is correct the statute Is
not open to the objection which is made against
IL.
We come now TO consider the objection that
! the defendant Spies was compelled by the court
10 DO a witness against himself. he volun-
tarily offered himself witness in his own
behalf and by 50 doing he became bound to
submit himself TO a proper cross exam ma
ton. The complaint IS that he was re-
CURED on cross-examination to state
Z whether he had received certain
/ letter which was shown, purp0rting TO
/ have been written by Johann Most and ad-
/ dressed TO him. and upon his saying that he
/ had the Court allowed the letter TO be read
I in evidence against HIM This, it is claimed
I was not proper cross-eKamnation. II is not
\ contended that the subject to which the cross
/ examination related was not pertinent to the
issue TO be tried and whether a cross-examina-
/ tion must be confined 10 matters pertinent to
l Che tpsfirnouV in chief or NAV be 10 the matter